Apple’s worldwide court battles against Samsung: where they stand and what they mean

Apple has managed to get Samsung to delay launching the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in …

Samsung has once again delayed the release of its Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia to evade an injunction against the device in that country. Samsung may be attempting to find workarounds to avoid violating Apple's Australian patents, but for now it is delaying the launch until at least September 30, just days after scheduled hearings from an Australian federal magistrate.

This follows news from late last week when a German judge upheld an injunction barring Samsung's German subsidiary from selling its Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the European Union, even though a Dutch court disagreed on the validity of Apple's registered Community Design. Still, the Dutch court did issue an injunction against Samsung's Galaxy S smartphones based on an Apple patent for photo management on a mobile device. Samsung has until October 13 to find a workaround for that infringement, which may simply require a software update for an included photo gallery app.

With three limited wins under its belt, some analysts are perhaps prematurely predicting that Samsung may settle. We thought it might be worthwhile to summarize where cases stand in Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, and the US before making some predictions of our own.

Australia

Apple sued Samsung in Australia, alleging that the company copied its design for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 from the iPad. The two companies appeared before an Australian federal court on August 1, with Apple making a case for patent and design infringement while Samsung argued that the version of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 set for release in Australia was different from the US version Apple built its case on. To avoid an official injunction, Samsung agreed to voluntarily hold off selling or advertising the device until this Australian version could be examined by Apple's lawyers.

After procuring samples of the Australian market version, Apple's lawyers noted that its "reduced functionality" would still infringe at least two of Apple's Australian patents. On Monday, Apple asked for an injunction against the sale of both the US version and the Australian version in that country.

Samsung argued that the modified Australian version did not infringe any patents, and that Apple presented no new evidence in the hearing. However, a hearing for evidence in the injunction matter is scheduled for later in September, and Samsung has agreed to delay its planned launch again until at least September 30, pending the decision on a preliminary injunction.

Germany

Apple sued Samsung in Germany's Landgericht Düsseldorf, alleging that Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 aped Apple's registered design for the iPad. Apple requested a preliminary injunction, which a German judge issued. Because Apple's registered Community Design is a European Union document, the original injunction barred both Samsung's German subsidiary as well at its Korean parent company from distributing or selling the Galaxy Tab 10.1 EU-wide.

The judge later questioned whether the court had jurisdiction over Samsung's parent corporation based in South Korea, lifting the injunction for everywhere in the EU outside of Germany.

After an appeal hearing, the German court reaffirmed its decision against Samsung's German subsidiary and its lifting of the injunction with respect to Samsung's Korean parent company. However, it will further weigh arguments made by both Samsung and Apple before issuing a final decision on September 9.

(As we noted last month, Apple is also attempting to stop sales of Motorola's Xoom Android tablet in the Landgericht Düsseldorf as well.)

The Netherlands

Apple's lawsuit in the Netherlands was more expansive than the German complaint, and potentially more damaging to Samsung due to the fact that Samsung's European logistics are handled by Netherlands-based Samsung Logistics BV. Apple asserted that Samsung's tablets and smartphones infringed both its EU Community Design and several functional European patents, among other claims. The company appeared to be hoping for a serious smackdown of a preliminary injunction that would effectively halt Samsung's EU business and force a recall of affected products.

However, a judge in The Hague ruled that only one of Apple's patents was likely infringed by Samsung's various devices. Specifically, the judge noted that Samsung's Android-based smartphones, including the Galaxy S, Galaxy SII, and Ace, infringed on EP 2,059,868, "Portable Electronic Device for Photo Management." On that basis, a preliminary injunction was issued for those three devices and is set to take effect on October 13.

After more thorough analysis of the decision issued by the Dutch court, it appears that the judge there was convinced that Apple's Community Design registration for the iPad is too generic to offer wide-ranging protection. He also felt the registration could likely be invalidated due to prior art such as an early tablet research project by newspaper publisher Knight Ridder. Furthermore, the design of iPhone and Samsung's smartphones are just different enough to avoid infringement. Apple had entered charges of "mere copying" under Dutch law, but those were added to the complaint too late to be considered for the preliminary injunction.

Additionally, the judge dismissed claims that Samsung devices violated Apple patents for "the slide-to-unlock gesture" and for registering multitouch events. "Factually speaking, the unlock patent seems pretty much off the table, as it is similar to another phone and easily considered trivial otherwise," Dutch lawyer and consultant Hein Dries-Ziekenheiner told Ars. "This case looks like a victory for Samsung and all Samsung users.

Dries-Ziekenheimer also pointed out some differences between Apple's and Samsung's photo-swipe system. "I tried the old system on my wife's Samsung Ace and must say I prefer the new 'one swipe' system," he told us. "So, the Samsung user wins too—they are sure to have the new system in 7 weeks."

Essentially, if Samsung releases an update for the Android smartphones in question, it could avoid the Dutch injunction altogether.

United States

Though Apple has been making some tiny headway in Europe and Australia, its US case against Samsung is still getting underway. Apple's case in the US seems to be the most comprehensive, citing numerous design and functional patent infringements, trademark violations, and trade dress protections. A hearing has been set for mid-October on Apple's request for a preliminary injunction against most of Samsung's Android-based smartphones and tablets in the US.

Though Apple has struggled getting Federal District Judge Judy Koh to agree to its speedy trial schedule, it has gotten the judge to agree to an expedited trial date. Apple wanted the case to begin as early as February 2012, while Samsung merely contended that based on the court's average case length, trial shouldn't begin until sometime in 2013. Judge Koh slated the trial for July 30, 2012—not as early as Apple wanted, but soon enough to put a little pressure on Samsung.

Meanwhile, cases are still pending in France, Italy, the UK, Japan, South Korea.

What it all means

Samsung may have to further modify the Galaxy Tab 10.1 it intends to release in Australia in order to avoid an official injunction there. Still, Apple has managed to force a launch delay of at least two months on the mere threat of injunction. We'll know more about the situation down under in late September.

The German decision is somewhat helpful for Apple, but it won't really stop Samsung from bringing in Galaxy Tabs through some other subsidiary besides its German one. Furthermore, retailers haven't stopped selling whatever stock they can get, so the injunction hasn't had much effect so far. Still, Apple can use the court's decision to argue that its design registration is valid and that Samsung violates it. Courts in EU countries are required to at least consider rulings from other countries' courts, though they aren't bound by those decisions.

The Dutch injunction is likewise mostly meaningless. The court has so far rejected Apple's claims save for one claim of patent infringement, and it seems likely that Samsung could easily push out an update to the infringing devices in order to work around that patent. While tying up Samsung's European logistics would have given Apple a serious edge, it doesn't appear that will actually happen based on the narrow application of the injunction.

Apple could later win over a Dutch judge in the main trial, but according to experts who spoke to Ars, that seems unlikely at this stage. Additionally, Samsung will be able to use the ruling in The Netherlands to argue that Apple's design registration should be invalid and not infringed by Samsung devices in the UK, France, and Italy.

In the US, Apple may face similar trouble with its registered design patents for the iPad asserted against Samsung's tablets. Samsung has entered a brief noting (among other things) that in the 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey, astronauts use a device eerily similar to an iPad to read the latest news from Earth. While props from TV and movies aren't generally considered prior art for functional patents, attorney Patrick Igoe told Ars that they could be considered "enabling" prior art for design patents. That same logic was applied in the Dutch case with respect to Apple's Community Design, and it could be a serious blow to Apple's case here. Samsung has also cited earlier Japanese design registrations as well, so it's not merely relying on props for its prior art claims.

On top of that, Apple faces a higher legal standard to gain a preliminary injunction in the US compared to most European courts. "A party seeking an injunction would, among other things, have to show that it is likely to succeed on the merits [of its case]," Chicago-based IP attorney Evan Brown told Ars.

RBC analyst Mike Abramasky told clients late last week that Samsung may try to work out a "global settlement" with Apple over the various lawsuits winding their way through courts in nine countries. Both companies have reportedly been in talks to settle their dispute outside the courtroom, but Apple's wins have so far been mostly a façade. They suggest Apple could eventually be successful in court, but haven't really affected Samsung in any way that might pressure the company to seek a truce.

If Apple is able to secure an injunction in the US—a remote possibility, it seems—that could change Samsung's tune significantly. However, this battle is likely to wind on for least another year or two through various US and international courts. At that point, Samsung and Apple will have released at least another generation of products, and the market could look far different than it does today. Even if Apple does eventually win out over Samsung in court, it may wind up being a largely Pyrrhic victory.

"2001: A Space Oddessey"? Is that the Korean spelling of Odyssey (and I thought it came out in 1968)...

Still, I have to say that Apple is being a playground bully here, kicking sand and stealing potato chips from other kids.

Tablets have been longed for and dreamed about and mocked up (and mocked) for so long that it should be easy to show that Apple merely copied prior art.

As for the shape - I presume that the approx thickness of the area around the screen (the black bezel) is dictated by the electronics needed to run the screen - so most manufacturers would have be about the same...

Oh, and since Samsung makes screens (do they for the iPad2?) they would obviously have to use about the same dimensions.

Apple is the new Sony. Samsung embraced the open-source community, has some of the LEAST locked-down hardware of any company. It actually works with Cyanogenmod to help ensure that the modders can work on its products. It HIRED Cyanogen himself. They've never AFAIK used encrypted bootloaders and don't sue its users for gaining root. If there is a company more open-source friendly among the current crop, I'm not sure who it is. That's nothing like Sony in any way.

On the other hand, Sony was famous for locking down its hardware and suing and being generally anti-opensource and anti-hackers. Sound like anyone we know?

Ahem, Apple. Apple's launched a world-wide legal assault on Android, and, by proxy, everyone who loves, hacks, and contributes to it, and, as this article shows, is basically peddling FUD. Their claims are mostly dismissed, even in Europe. But they have 70 billion dollars to blow on litigating their competitors to death, so I guess they'll keep attacking the most successful Linux distribution ever as long as they have breath in their corporate body.

I can't for the life of me understand why this anti-open source legal campaign is ignored by tech people who otherwise are anti-intellectual property (except when it's Apple's) anti-copyright (except Apple's) anti-litigation (except for Apple) and pro-open source (except for open source projects that compete with Apple). It's seriously some weird example of marketing mass psychosis, and Apple better hope it holds, or they WILL be the next Sony. People used to think they were cool too, but act like dicks too often and eventually people will realize that you are.

No one other than a true visionary could have envisioned making a tablet all, you know, flat and rectangular-like. And it's got, like, a screen on one side. A screen! Truly revolutionary.

At least that's Apple's argument.

All one need do is compare what tablets looked like pre-iPad and post-iPad to very quickly determine that you are a self-loathing crybaby suffering from mild Asperger’s Syndrome, and a fool. Apple solved the problem of how to make a tablet that people want to buy. Samsung didn’t copy pre-iPad tablets with its Galaxy Tab. They very deliberately copied specific design details not common to tables before Apple revealed the iPad to the world.

Your particular flavor of mental disorder — wherein you want what Apple makes but are emotionally unable to buy it from Apple — is both sad and amusing. Sad, because it reveals that you have deep psychological problems. Funny, because I don’t give a shit.

you are a self-loathing crybaby suffering from mild Asperger’s Syndrome, and a fool.

Good to see Apple fans are taking the high road, and resorting to ad hominem attacks as quickly as possible.

Quote:

They very deliberately copied specific design details not common to tables before Apple revealed the iPad to the world.

Apple changed the look of the tablet, and others followed. This is not new or unique. What is new is Apple using the courts to attack others for following, effectively insisting that they own everything about their design.

Quote:

Your particular flavor of mental disorder — wherein you want what Apple makes but are emotionally unable to buy it from Apple — is both sad and amusing. Sad, because it reveals that you have deep psychological problems. Funny, because I don’t give a shit.

See? That wonderful ad-hominem keeps cropping up. The amusing part about your argument is that you seem to embody it much, much more than the person you replied to.

They very deliberately copied specific design details not common to tables before Apple revealed the iPad to the world.

Actually what this reveals is that you believe, for Apple, that companies should be driven out of business for making essentially 'copy-cat' products. They aren't counterfeit- they don't have Apple's logo on them. Nobody intelligent will mistake them. But you Apple-folks think that Apple should have a monopoly on making flat black tablets with grids of icons. Nobody thinks that Samsung didn't ape the style, but we just don't think Apple has the right to sue everyone out of business.

The rest of us think that, in a world where product design, cars, commercial design, have, for thousands of years, evolved by imitation, that's bullshit. Did you know that its not possible to legally protect clothing designs? Something to consider...

...you are a self-loathing crybaby suffering from mild Asperger’s Syndrome, and a fool...

Your particular flavor of mental disorder — wherein you want what Apple makes but are emotionally unable to buy it from Apple — is both sad and amusing. Sad, because it reveals that you have deep psychological problems. Funny, because I don’t give a shit.

Your particular flavor of mental disorder — wherein you want what Apple makes but are emotionally unable to cope with people pointing out bad things about Apple — is both sad and amusing. Sad, because it reveals that you have deep psychological problems. Funny, because I don’t give a shit.

Re-read your comment, preferably aloud. Try to view it objectively. You do realize, I hope, that you sound like a mad man? No one attacked you personally, just your obviously far too beloved ultra-capitalist company. There's no need to run around shouting and cursing everyone who doesn't share your love for Apple.

For once in the history of Apple, they should invent somethong new. Fire the lawyers and hire engineers.

Apple makes me ashamed to be an American. This country used to build stuff. Now the manufacturing is done in some hell hole factory in China. All that is done in the states is fancy marketing and dubious lawsuits.

Apple is like a rock band that exists on cool hair and clothing, but needs an autotune to actually sing.

I can't for the life of me understand why this anti-open source legal campaign is ignored by tech people who otherwise are anti-intellectual property (except when it's Apple's) anti-copyright (except Apple's) anti-litigation (except for Apple) and pro-open source (except for open source projects that compete with Apple). It's seriously some weird example of marketing mass psychosis, and Apple better hope it holds, or they WILL be the next Sony. People used to think they were cool too, but act like dicks too often and eventually people will realize that you are.

Oh, Please! Apple Pisses me off is much as the next guy. So what is it? Why do you have to dog on people that use Apple products? Jealousy?

Oh and by the way, I have always hated Sony, Ever since their boldface lies about the PS2 got the Dreamcast canned. The PS2 sucked compered to what Sony said it would be able to do. It even sucked compared to the Dreamcast at times too, at least more than any fanboy would admit. So, when the PS3 came out I just laughed, Sony did it again! At least people are finally starting to see it now.

Hey, I didn't ad hom and yet microlith chose to reward maralatho with a response.

Apple, last I checked, is suing Motorola for the same reasons they're attacking Samsung, yet Motorola's contains slots and ports.

By no means does Apple deserve to sue others and claim ownership over the notion of a clean border (after all, if they placed it under a door to hide the ports/slots, would that be grounds for Apple to sue too?)

Other than icons in a grid or what ever samsung calls them there are similarities. Sorry but I just don't think that is a violation of anything.

Tons of products out there that look similar. Apple is butt hurt because samsung has seen success with their galaxy products at the expense of apple.

Duh, an in some circles that translates to damages.

No, damages come after you prove that some protectable legal interest was violated. So far, Apple has won NOTHING. Everything has been preliminary injunctions in foreign courts which only guess at what an eventual decision might be and even those routinely throw out most of Apple's arguments. Apple is doing exactly what these Copyright Trolls are doing by suing mass people by IP address. Hoping for a big settlement before they have to prove their case in court. Ars' readership is solidly against legal blackmail when its against individuals, but what about when its against collective open-source projects (by proxy). Then, somehow, its ok.

What Apple wants is to make an example of Samsung to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) against the Android operating system so that company's know that if they adopt it, they'll have a million dollar lawsuit. They hope people pick up Windows phone 7 and that the competition fragments and they can own the field like they own the ipod market. Its actually working - if Samsung folds, buys WebOS, gives up, that's a huge win for them. The financial people were begging Google to quit Android and not to buy Motorola, see Forbes. Apple's got 70 billion to blow on lawyers. The game's not even started yet, but Apple's actions may very well work, and they are hoping that they will continue to avoid any blowback from the tech community for it.

This is a fast moving field. If Apple can put Samsung back by a few months, it would be half of a product cycle. That's a lot, and it could be enough to be a problem.

Meanwhile, the evidence seems to be piling up that perhaps the Tab's aren't selling as well as Samsung wants people to think. they said, after a slow quarter, that they will no longer tell how many tablets and phones they ship. Not a good sign.

Then Best Buy has a sale giving away a $500 Samsung tablet with every Samsung $1,500 55" 3D Tv. Also not a good sign.

Apple has clearly fought and won a trade dress lawsuit before. It is not a forgone conclusion, therefore, that Samsung will prevail or that Samsung won't have to pay damages or settle out of court to avoid damages.

While you might scoff at the lawsuit and at the concept that Apple can have any ownership over a design, the fact that it's happened before means it can happen again.

Good to see Apple fans are taking the high road, and resorting to ad hominem attacks as quickly as possible.

Funny, I don't believe he is.

OrangeCream wrote:

Maybe some context is in order.

Apple has clearly fought and won a trade dress lawsuit before. It is not a forgone conclusion, therefore, that Samsung will prevail or that Samsung won't have to pay damages or settle out of court to avoid damages.

While you might scoff at the lawsuit and at the concept that Apple can have any ownership over a design, the fact that it's happened before means it can happen again.

Yet the design of the Bondi Blue iMac was so wildly distinctive that it could legitimately be argued that eMachines was deliberately trying to mimic it as closely as possible to confuse buyers. It's hard to argue the same with the iPad, as Samsung is showing.

Apple has clearly fought and won a trade dress lawsuit before. It is not a forgone conclusion, therefore, that Samsung will prevail or that Samsung won't have to pay damages or settle out of court to avoid damages.

While you might scoff at the lawsuit and at the concept that Apple can have any ownership over a design, the fact that it's happened before means it can happen again.

Apple emphatically did NOT win this lawsuit. The parties settled. We don't refer to a settlement as a win, because it isn't a legal decision on the merits. It's a particular pet peeve of mine that Apple watchers don't make a distinction when citing Apple's lawsuits between cases where Apple has actually been found to be right by a judge or a jury, and those where the opponent just gives up after being lawyered to death.

Apple has 70 billion dollars and they're willing to use it to lawyer you to death and they bet, usually correctly, that their opponents will just settle at some point and never present the merits of the case to the court. Thanks for illustrating my point perfectly. That's EXACTLY what they are doing with Samsung. Legal blackmail.

Apple is the new Sony. Samsung embraced the open-source community, has some of the LEAST locked-down hardware of any company. It actually works with Cyanogenmod to help ensure that the modders can work on its products. It HIRED Cyanogen himself. They've never AFAIK used encrypted bootloaders and don't sue its users for gaining root. If there is a company more open-source friendly among the current crop, I'm not sure who it is. That's nothing like Sony in any way.

On the other hand, Sony was famous for locking down its hardware and suing and being generally anti-opensource and anti-hackers. Sound like anyone we know?

Ahem, Apple. Apple's launched a world-wide legal assault on Android, and, by proxy, everyone who loves, hacks, and contributes to it, and, as this article shows, is basically peddling FUD. Their claims are mostly dismissed, even in Europe. But they have 70 billion dollars to blow on litigating their competitors to death, so I guess they'll keep attacking the most successful Linux distribution ever as long as they have breath in their corporate body.

I can't for the life of me understand why this anti-open source legal campaign is ignored by tech people who otherwise are anti-intellectual property (except when it's Apple's) anti-copyright (except Apple's) anti-litigation (except for Apple) and pro-open source (except for open source projects that compete with Apple). It's seriously some weird example of marketing mass psychosis, and Apple better hope it holds, or they WILL be the next Sony. People used to think they were cool too, but act like dicks too often and eventually people will realize that you are.

I think your confused here. The litigation is not against open source software.Apple is a good contributor and user of open source softwares.http://www.opensource.apple.com/Actually they contribute a LOT more than Samsung in that department.

And I've never heard of Apple suing a user because he/she gains root access to a device.And they never put rootkits on customers devices or anything like that.All the music and music videos on iTunes is DRM free.So no they are not the new Sony.Please check your facts before posting next time, your post has not a single statement that is remotely true or correct.

Finally there is no such a thing has 'marketing mass psychosis'.Only people who buy devices of their choices.I don't think there anyone who likes Apple products that wants Android to disappear from the market.Competition is good for the customer.What is bad is mega corp like Samsung that cannot hire decent designers to create a distinct product of their own, well at least with these phones and tablets.Look, I'm very happy for Asus, they have a distinctive product with the Transformer and it sells well.Why Samsung Electronics can't do the same?

I think your confused here. The litigation is not against open source software.Apple is a good contributor and user of open source softwares.http://www.opensource.apple.com/Actually they contribute a LOT more than Samsung in that department.

Apple is trying to kill one of the most successful retail distributions of Linux ever launched. If they succeed, there will be NO open-source operating system for smartphones. That's the anti-open source I'm talking about.

Linux's history is of established players like Microsoft trying to litigate anyone who uses it to demand 'tolls' of what they think is their intellectual property. Apple is even worse in that it isn't even asking for 'tax' like Microsoft does, it is trying to ban products from being imported altogether.

In case you forget, Samsung isn't their only target. HTC is subject to a similar lawsuit that focuses on core aspects of Android - it has nothing to do with Samsung's specific GUI implementation. Apple just uses every legal weapon they have that potentially applies and that's what they've pulled out against Samsung.

Their claims against HTC are different, as are their claims against Motorola. I guarantee you if Asus was competing against Apple on the level Samsung is, they'd be sued as well. Don't buy the argument that Samsung brought this on themselves somehow. This is a legal war. You either support it, or you don't. To pretend that if Samsung had left the slide-lock off, or arranged the photo gallery differently, that they wouldn't be in the exact same lawsuit is hopelessly naive.

Apple is trying to kill one of the most successful retail distributions of Linux ever launched. If they succeed, there will be NO open-source operating system for smartphones. That's the anti-open source I'm talking about.

To be pedantically correct, Apple is trying to kill the competitor phones. That happen to use said software.

*Oracle* is trying to kill said software.

As an aside, open-source software can be subject to the same legal scruples (copyrights, patents, infringement) as proprietary software. When it infringes, distribution should be stopped or damages repaid. That's the law.